Game 7 Rehash

[Guest Edgy DC]

Here's a dumb rehash, but what the heck.

Let's say Wilie sends Glavine up there instead of Floyd and he successfully moves the runners over.

The Cards, playing against the single instead of the double, maybe cheat up tighter in the outfield. Any chance that drive by Reyes (assuming, for the sake of argument, that his at-bat comes out the same) gets by Edmonds?

I doubt it, but that's one unspoken benefit to the bunt in that situation. It can force the defense to have to play more aggressively, if only for one out.

[Elster88]

I never really understood the concept of no doubles defense.

But never mind that, also the successful bunt possibly means an IBB for Jose? I think that would've seriously fucked up Wainwright...but then again it didn't fuck him up when he faced the bases loaded with two out.

----

PS. Fun with the English language. "Two outs" uses "out" as a noun. What does "two out" use "out" as? I assume it's short for "two are out". In that case is "out" a verb or an adjective?

[Guest Edgy DC]

No doubles is for when you absolutely don't want one run to score, up by one or tied in the ninth or so.

It takes at least three singles to score a run, but one double and a single will do the trick.

So, by playing the no-doubles, you decrease the chance of a double by, say 10%, even if you perhaps increase the chance of a singe by 15%. Because it'll take two more singles to get that single home, but only one more to get the double home.

You really don't want that double, because one more hit --- rather than two --- can turn the game.

[Elster88]

I'm too tired to pose any counterarguments that would probably be wrong anyway. If I'm going to be dead wrong, I like to be awake at the time.

(New thread! New thread!)